Madras High Court Affirms Right of Same-Sex Couples to Form Families, Upholds Individual Autonomy and Dignity

In a recent habeas corpus case involving the alleged illegal detention of a woman by her family, the Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan emphasized the fundamental right of same-sex couples to form families, even if they cannot legally marry. The petitioner, in a relationship with the detenue, had sought her release from unlawful confinement by her relatives. The Court, after personally interacting with the detenue—a well-educated adult of sound mind—found her detention unjustified and noted her clear intent to return to her partner.

Drawing on Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023), the Court highlighted that the legal notion of family should not be confined to traditional structures. It recognized diverse familial arrangements, including same-sex partnerships, as equally valid and deserving of legal protection. It also invoked Devu G. v. State of Kerala (2023), where the Supreme Court had laid down sensitive handling of cases involving LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring their autonomy, safety, and dignity.

The Bench referred to landmark judgments like NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), reiterating that sexual orientation is a core element of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. While same-sex marriages were not yet legally recognized as per Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Court firmly held that the ability to form chosen families remains constitutionally protected.

Importantly, the Court underscored the significance of the Yogyakarta Principles, affirming universal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including the right to form families and enjoy personal security. It criticized the police for their inadequate response to the petitioner’s SOS messages, emphasizing that officials have a legal duty to act swiftly in such matters.

Lastly, the Bench expressed discomfort with the use of the term ‘queer,’ arguing it carries negative connotations and fails to reflect the natural and normal identity of LGBTQIA+ individuals. Upholding the detenue’s autonomy, the Court allowed her to leave with the petitioner and condemned any efforts to suppress such relationships.

Case title- [M. A v. Superintendent of Police, Vellore, H.C.P.No.990 of 2025, decided on 22-05-2025]